'GOOD RIDDANCE': Trump dunks on climate alarmists over ridiculous doomsday scenario



President Donald Trump mocked climate alarmists on Saturday after another one of their doomsday scenarios was shown to be utter nonsense.

The admission by scientists that prompted Trump's derision is but the latest in a long series of embarrassments for those activists keen to use climate prophecies as an excuse to socially engineer human beings and regulate society.

Narrative collapse

The imagined threat of anthropogenic climate change has driven numerous public officials, scientists, and impressionable people bonkers in recent decades.

While Western politicians sacrificed energy security and hobbled industry in hopes of slowing natural phenomena and defeating the arch-villain carbon dioxide (plant food), similarly minded scientists proposed blotting out the sun; "culling" the emission-generating human population with a deadly pandemic; reducing or eliminating meat consumption; putting the population on a diet of bugs, weeds, and micro-algae; and having fewer children.

'Climate Activism has been used by Dumocrats to scare Americans, push horrible Energy Polices, and fund BILLIONS into their bogus research programs.'

This madness has been driven and exacerbated in large part by bogus claims and laughably wrong predictions. In most cases, all that's required to debunk such claims is time and a functional set of eyes.

Failed Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, for instance, said at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009 that new research indicated there was "a 75% chance that the entire North Polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years."

Just as Gore was wrong about a 20-foot rise in the global sea level "in the near future," polar bear drownings, and the snows of Kilimanjaro, he was wrong about the future of Arctic ice.

A paper published late last year in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters concluded that over the past 20 years, "Arctic sea ice loss has slowed considerably, with no statistically significant decline in September sea ice area since 2005."

RELATED: Bizarre academic paper about releasing ticks resurfaces amid surging bites

Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis/Getty Images

If, perhaps, Gore confused the Arctic with the Antarctic, he'd still be wrong. Antarctica has enjoyed a massive gain in ice mass — at a rate of 119 billion tons per year from 2021 to 2023.

Polar ice is hardly the only planetary feature alarmists mistakenly suggested would fall victim to climate change.

Alarmists suggested in a 2017 study and elsewhere that climate change posed an existential threat to the world's coral reefs and that "immediate global action to curb future warming is essential to secure a future for coral reefs."

While dutifully claiming that "climate change mitigation" was still essential, researchers admitted in 2024 that "widespread and diverse coral species all exhibit the potential to adapt to the changing climate."

Former Jeffrey Epstein associate Bill Gates is one of the few alarmists to admit to having pie on his face.

Gates alleged in a 2021 work of climate alarmist agitprop that if humanity failed to eliminate so-called greenhouse gas emissions, "climate change will keep getting worse, and the impact on humans will in all likelihood be catastrophic."

After years of fear-mongering, he apparently felt compelled to admit that he too had gotten it wrong.

Gates noted in October that the "doomsday view of climate change" that says "cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization" and that "nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature" is wrong.

UN wrong, again

The United Nations, like Gates a longtime proponent of climate hysteria, was recently confronted with evidence that it too is wrong.

The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project, an outfit led by a committee of top climate scientists, admitted in a study published last month in the journal Geoscientific Model Development that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's worst-case future emissions scenarios are "implausible based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends."

Taking into account the world's future population, emission trends, energy sources, climate policies, and other factors, researchers have cooked up various climate scenarios for use in scientific modeling and activist propaganda.

In the early 2010s, such researchers developed a set of four scenarios for climate modeling, called "representative concentration pathways" or RCPs. The most extreme of these was RCP8.5.

The number 8.5 here signals the level of radiative forcing — the extra heat supposedly trapped in the Earth's system, expressed in watts per square meter — projected by the year 2100.

The IPCC projected in 2013 that under this scenario, there would be a temperature rise of 4.3°C by 2081-2100 when compared to the pre-industrial period.

Government of Canada

RCP8.5's successor, "shared socioeconomic pathway"-8.5, projected warming of 4.4°C by 2081-2100, with a "very likely" range of 3.3°C to 5.7°C, the Carbon Brief reported.

It was all nonsense.

Roger Pielke Jr., a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, noted, "The four scenarios were never apples-to-apples. They were four different fruits from four different trees. Yet, over more than a decade and in tens of thousands of papers, RCP8.5 was treated as where the world was headed and the other three scenarios — but especially RCP4.5 and 2.6 — as a world with climate policy interventions."

Despite numerous scientists stressing that the alarmist scenario was not only unlikely but misleading, the RCP8.5 scenario "came to dominate the literature to a degree that is impossible to overstate," Pielke said.

"RCP8.5 accounted for more than half of all RCP references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment, nearly 60 percent in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere, and about a third of all RCP references in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report," Pielke wrote. "By early 2020, researchers were publishing studies invoking RCP8.5 at a rate of roughly 20 per day. So far in 2026, studies using RCP8.5 (or its even more extreme successor, SSP5-8.5) are being published at a rate of ~30 new studies per day."

Now, the scientific community must contend with the acknowledgment that this scenario is bogus.

Science journalist Maarten Keulemans noted in a post that has been translated from its original Dutch, "The IPCC acknowledges what has been circulating for a long time: The highest disaster scenario, 8.5, no longer aligns with reality. WHAT CONSEQUENCES this has. ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU READ ABOUT CLIMATE FUTURE IS WRONG."

Keuleman suggested further that this admission effectively torpedoes claims that global surface temperature will increase 4-5°C by 2100; summers will all hit 104°F and agriculture in Western Europe will be unsustainable by century's end; tuna, swordfish, and other marine creatures will go extinct; there will be millions of climate refugees every year; and that there will be no more Winter Olympics by 2040.

Trump similarly weighed in, stating, "GOOD RIDDANCE! After 15 years of Dumocrats promising that 'Climate Change' is going to destroy the Planet, the United Nations TOP Climate Committee just admitted that its own projections (RCP8.5) were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!"

"For far too long Climate Activism has been used by Dumocrats to scare Americans, push horrible Energy Polices, and fund BILLIONS into their bogus research programs," the president continued. "Unlike the Dumocrats, who use Climate Alarmism nonsense to push their GREEN NEW SCAM, my Administration will always be based on TRUTH, SCIENCE, and FACT!"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Waiting to exhale? Trump’s EPA just made it possible.



The Trump administration has rescinded the Obama administration’s 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding for gases such as carbon dioxide. You may now exhale without worrying that the carbon dioxide in your breath will contribute to global warming.

After all, with 8.3 billion people on the planet exhaling an average of 2.3 pounds of CO2 per person per day, roughly 9.5 million tons of CO2 are respired into the atmosphere daily. That is a lot of hot air — literally.

If you have been holding your breath while waiting for more sensible environmental regulations that focus on both people and the planet, you may now breathe easier.

Fortunately, plants use the air we exhale. It is part of the life cycle that sustains a healthy biosphere. Add the full carbon cycle — in which carbon is sequestered and released throughout the living and nonliving components of the global ecosystem — and a natural balance is generally maintained.

The serious question has been whether human activity, especially the increasing use of fossil fuels since the late 1800s, has tipped that balance.

The major “consensus science” conclusions tied to the endangerment finding include the confident assertion that modern climate change can be attributed to people burning fossil fuels and releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. According to one professional organization, these human-caused changes “are larger and faster than any humanity is known to have endured over the last 10,000 years.” The same view also holds that many harmful impacts already under way will intensify and outweigh any benefits.

Yet another perspective deserves consideration. One of the greatest forces lifting people out of poverty has been the burning of fossil fuels. The progression from coal to oil to natural gas — along with advances in pollution controls — has helped produce dramatically higher living standards in societies that use their energy resources well.

Arguably, the human-caused improvements in comfort, productivity, and longevity made possible by fossil fuels are also “larger and faster than any humanity is known to have [enjoyed] over the last 10,000 years.”

As for harmful impacts, the rhetorical pattern often looks familiar: find an extraordinary weather event and blame it on anthropogenic global warming. Extreme heat? Human activity. Extreme cold — as the United States recently experienced? Human activity again.

At least most scientists acknowledge that positive effects exist. These include substantial increases in global vegetation and the advantages of warmer temperatures over colder ones for human well-being and development.

RELATED: 5 truths the climate cult can’t bury any more

Khanchit Khirisutchalual via iStock/Getty Images

Any honest assessment of climate change and its effects on people, infrastructure, and the natural world should weigh both benefits and harms. Complex systems demand that kind of accounting.

The current retraction of the endangerment finding will be a particular breath of fresh air for the auto industry. In essence, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that it “lacks statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act to prescribe standards for [greenhouse gas] emissions” from “new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines.”

According to the EPA:

As a result of these changes, engine and vehicle manufacturers no longer have any future obligations for the measurement, control, and reporting of [greenhouse gas] emissions for any highway engine and vehicle, including model years manufactured prior to this final rule. This final action is only related to [greenhouse gas] emissions and does not affect regulations on any traditional air pollutants. Rather, this action realigns EPA’s regulatory framework with the best reading of the CAA, which does not authorize EPA to regulate [greenhouse gas] emissions from new motor vehicles.

As the agency notes, traditional health-based air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ground-level ozone, particulate matter, lead, and carbon monoxide — not CO2 — are unaffected by this EPA action.

So if you have been holding your breath while waiting for more sensible environmental regulations that focus on both people and the planet, you may now breathe easier.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at American Thinker.

EPA reverses Biden-era rules on greenhouse gas emissions



The Environmental Protection Agency under President Trump is looking a lot different than the one that existed under Biden after Trump’s rollback of greenhouse gas limits.

The agency is now proposing to repeal all greenhouse gas emissions standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants, which would include requirements set under Biden.

“This is a big deal, because when you think about your electricity bill, when you think about the cost of powering the country, these power plants are a huge part of it,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere explains on “Stu Does America.”

“When you limit how they can produce the fuel that you need, you wind up driving up the cost of that energy. That’s why your power bills have probably gone up over the past couple of years,” he continues, noting that the reasoning behind Biden’s requirements were silly in the first place.


“You have to remember that 88% of emissions don’t come from the United States. Everyone’s obsessed with the United States and what we’re driving and what kind of power we’re using, but 88% of global emissions come from other places, not us,” Stu says. “So really, the focus on us just kind of seems to be a little bit more about anti-capitalism than anything else.”

And while 12% of global emissions do come from the United States, 75% of those emissions are coming from sources that are not power plants.

“What we’re talking about here is only 3% of global emissions. A little, tiny slice of a little, tiny slice that comes from coal and natural gas plants,” Stu explains. “And that’s not even the entire picture, because things have been changing, honestly, in a direction that nobody on television wants to tell you about, because everyone wants to scare you.”

“Everyone wants to tell you that the emissions are going crazy, and we’re all going to die, and global warming is coming to town, and it’s going to, you know, going to backhand you across the face, and we’re going to have these terrible storms,” he continues.

In a chart revealing the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2022, the amount continues to drop.

“They’ve been going down since the mid-2000s, not dramatically. Down from 5.5% in 2005,” Stu says. “With the exception, really, of the COVID year, where we had one dramatic drop. And even the dramatic drop, it wasn’t all that dramatic, which kind of tells you something about greenhouse emissions overall.”

“When we basically shut down our economy for a year,” he adds, “we just had a slight drop in greenhouse gas emissions.”

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Hearing witness promptly corrects AOC for spewing 'complete falsehood' about oil and gas emissions



Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was promptly fact-checked on Tuesday after spewing a "complete falsehood" about greenhouse gas emissions.

At a House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources hearing on the Biden administration's "mismanagement of the federal onshore oil and gas program," Ocasio-Cortez claimed that nearly one-quarter of U.S. "carbon pollution" comes from oil and gas drilling on federal lands.

"As it stands, nearly a quarter of the United States' current carbon pollution comes from fossil fuel production on federal lands and waters," she claimed.

But according to Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, the New York Democrat is wrong.

Not only did Sgamma open her testimony by calling out Ocasio-Cortez for her "complete falsehood," but with data in hand, Sgamma corrected the record.

"I just want to start off by correcting something the ranking member said in her opening statement. She claimed that oil and gas production on federal lands is responsible for about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions," Sgamma said.

"That's based on a misreading of a USGS study of greenhouse gas emissions," she explained. "And if you actually look at the numbers, production on federal lands and waters accounts for 0.6% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions — not 'nearly a quarter.' Even the Interior Department stopped using that number after I simply pointed out the numbers from the USGS report."

Oversight Hearing | Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee www.youtube.com

Democrats often claim that a sizable chunk of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from drilling on federal lands to justify their push to end drilling on federal lands.

But it's simply not true. What is true, according to the USGS report cited at the hearing, is that "emissions from fossil fuels produced on Federal lands represent, on average, 23.7% of national emissions." But that doesn't mean drilling on federal lands is responsible for those emissions.

In fact, as Sgamma explained, the extraction of fossil fuels on federal lands accounts for a minuscule amount — 0.6% — of greenhouse gas emissions.

So where does the difference come from? As the Western Energy Alliance explains, the "vast majority" of emissions related to fossil fuels extracted from federal lands "comes from the end-use combustion of fossil fuels, not from the extraction."

It's the entire life cycle of those fuels, then — from extraction to combustion at their end point — that accounts for anything near what Ocasio-Cortez claimed.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

AOC Gets Fact-Checked In The Middle Of A Hearing For Bogus Climate Claim

'Even the Interior Department stopped using that number'

25 Attorneys General Blast Biden’s EPA For Forcing Car Makers And Consumers To Embrace EVs

Attorneys general from 25 states criticized the EPA's proposed EV rule as 'a top-to-bottom attempt to restructure the automobile industry.'

How The Supreme Court Upended EPA’s Power Grab And Curbed The Administrative State

Obama's Clean Power Plan was an unprecedented move to make the EPA into the nation's industrial policy czar. SCOTUS upended that plan.